The struggle against U.S. imperialist aggression in
IndoChina remains a central task of the American left.
Popular opposition to continuing the was has never before
been as widespread and as deep. This opposition has
acted as a constraint on the ability of the Nixon administration
to enlarge and magnify the conflict, although recent
events provide a somber reminder of the limited
effectiveness of popular opinion as a factor in determining
government action.

Paradoxically, the growth of anti-war sentiment has not
led to the growth and development of the organized anti-war
movement. Rather that movement is in a state of disarray
and demoralization, drifting aimlessly between a set of
stale protest tactics, at one time useful but becoming
increasingly ineffective, and various gimmicky "programs
which lack the substance on which to build serious mass
political work.

It seems most likely that the massive anti-war sentiment
will be funneled into electoral support for whatever candidate
the Democratic Party chooses to nominate. And the
left, as in 1964 and 1968, will have again demonstrated its
inability to build a movement challenging capitalism at its
roots.

This likely failure, despite favorable conditions,
requires discuss ion, debate and analysis. Without this we
remain trapped by our old errors and habits, unable to
overcome our weaknesses and move ahead. This article is
an attempt of the SOUJOURNER TRUTH
ORGANIZATION to initiate and to contribute to such &
discussion.

SITUATION IN INDOCHINA

We do not intend to give a detailed analysis of the
political-military situation in IndoChina, but it is clear to
everyone that the U.S. is in deep trouble. The recent
offensive of the NLP has clearly exposed the fetal weakness
of the Nixon strategy of Vietnamization.That strategy
was to base U.S. military power in IndoChina on a combination
of massive use of puppet and mercenary ground
troops, supported by the maximum utilization of U.S. airpower
and technological resources. The weakness is that
mercenary puppet troops are both incapable and unwilling
to undertake sustained combat against the well organized
and committed forces of the national liberation
movements. The U.S. technology, particularly in the air
war, while causing great hardship to the patriotic forces,
is not militarily decisive.

Under the circumstances there appear to be three
options open to Washington: 1) Withdraw U.S. military
forces from IndoChina conceding hegemony to the national
liberation forces; 2) Pull back military forces from South
Vietnam into Thailand as a tactical retreat, using whatever
diplomatic leverage the U.S. has with China and the
U.S.S.R. to maintain a continuing involvement in
IndoChina; 3) Attempt to maintain a foothold in South
Vietnam, either through the use of massive airpower up to
the use of tactical nuclear weapons, or through the reintroduction
of U.S. ground troops — or both.

While the strategic aim of the left within the anti-war
movement must be to force the government to take the first
position, we do not believe that the U.S. ruling class can
be forced to concede a defeat of that magnitude in the near
future.

Nixon's recent actions, of course, are an initial step
towards the third course, and, if they were free to exercise
their choice, this course would clearly be the choice of
most of the military and government chiefs. However, we
believe that as the blockade and stepped up bombing of
North Vietnam fail to achieve their military goals, some
variant of position two is the most likely response. To
further pursue three would arouse bitter opposition both
domestically and abroad in an election year.

If Washington does finally choose a tactical retreat, it
will be a victory for the Vietnamese liberation struggle
and the U.S. anti-war movement. But it must be made
clear to the people in this country that such a tactical
retreat does not mean withdrawal from IndoChina. The
U.S. will remain ready to resume armed hostilities at a
more favorable moment. This means that we must be
prepared to carry on a struggle against imperialism in a
period of cold as well as hot war. It follows from this
that it is crucial for the anti-war movement to further discredit the
Thieu regime and develop the understanding that the
P.R.G. is the legitimate government of South Vietnam.

CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

We believe that there are three tasks facing the antiwar
movement and anyone who claims leadership of it. They
are: 1) The program and practice of the organized anti-war
movement must be aimed at transforming the general antiwar
sentiment of the people, particularly the working
people, into political opposition to imperialism. A key test
would be the ability of the anti-war movement to relate to
the initiatives of Black political forces, such as the recent
convention in Gary. Understanding of imperialism is much
more widespread and much more sophisticated in the Black
community than among white workers, or for that matter,
white students. A movement that cannot relate to that
constituency has little hope of advancing beyond where we
are now. 2) The anti-war movement must be able to
provide leadership and coordination to the mass upsurge
that will result if the administration pursues escalation
further. This means the movement must be prepared to
intervene in, as well as support, work stoppages, GI
rebellions, campus uprisings, etc. To do this, the movement
will have to establish a presence in plants and on
bases, as well as on campuses, prior to the upsurge. 3)
The movement must be prepared to function forcefully at
times of lull in armed conflict as well as when the bombs
are falling. Otherwise it remains on the defensive,
yielding the initiative and the timing to the imperialists.
To do this, opposition to imperialism must be based on
more than moral abhorrence of killing, it must be based on
the class interests of the working people.

There are two existing national centers of anti-war
activity, and an attempt is now underway to form a third.
Measured by the criteria above, they are all grossly
inadequate to the task.

NPAC

The National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) is not
really a coalition, but a grouping based on the organizational
resources of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)
and in particular on its two mass youth organizations, the
Young Socialist Alliance and the Student Mobilization
Committee. NPAC's sole activity is to organize monster
rallies semi-annually around the slogan of immediate
withdrawal from Vietnam.

In the past these rallies have been valuable in crystalizing
and publicizing popular opposition to the war, even
though their political impact has been diluted by the
failure to give political support to the National Liberation
Front. In part this failure grows from the sectarianism of
the SWP, but probably more basic to it is the fear of
alienating the liberal politicians and trade union officials
whose endorsement and participation is seen as the key to
legitimatizing the anti-war movement by NPAC.

More importantly, this strategy of uniting everyone
around the slogan of immediate withdrawal means that
NPAC addresses itself indiscriminately to Blacks and
racists, workers and bosses, feminists and Hugh Heftier.
With such an approach they cannot begin to put forth even
a minimally coherent anti-imperialist political program, to
say nothing of clarifying the class character of imperialism.
Given the high general level of popular opposition
to the war, these amorphous rallies no longer serve any
useful purpose, while their lowest common denominator
politics only serve to strengthen the influence of
liberalism in the anti-war movement.

PCPJ

The People's Coalition for Peace and Justice,
organized supposedly as a left alternative to NPAC,
has not managed to transcend its origin as a
conglomeration of diverse and politically incompatible
'personalities' and organizations. Typically, the various
groupings and factions within it, the CPUSA, the
Christian Pacifists, the aging new leftists, each put
forth their own contradictory projects and programs all
of which are endorsed by PCPJ. The PCPJ is a sort of
fleamarket of anti-war schemes and ideas, each of which is
trying to attract the attention of anti-war activists.

3-POINT PROGRAM

Recently a group of liberals and new leftists associated
with PCPJ have put forth an ambitious strategy called the
Three Point Program. This program bears some discussion,
not so much because of its potential mass
impact, which we believe is small, but because it reveals
very sharply the liberal ideology dominating the political
forces which make up PCPJ, despite their differences in
rhetoric and style. This program is exceptional among
PCPJ programs, in that there do seem to be resources,
money and the support of prominent liberal politicians,
behind it.

The Three Point Program calls for mounting a public
campaign aimed at pressuring the Democratic Party into
adopting as part of its platform the following three planks:
1) An immediate unilateral ceasefire in IndoChina. 2) A
definite date by which all American armed forces will be
withdrawn, contingent only on the release of American
prisoners of war. 3) The withdrawal of all military and
material support of the Thieu regime. The pressure to
obtain this plank is to come from a whirlwind national
campaign of the peace movement urging that the peace
vote be withheld from any candidate who does not endorse
the three points.

On one level it is difficult to take this seriously. Any
democratic candidate who takes a discernibly more dovish
position than Nixon will get the peace vote, whatever the
party platform is. The organized peace movement doesn’t
have the power to grant or withhold the peace vote, and
every politician (and most everyone else) knows this.
Further, though voters may still have illusions about the
two-party system, they certainly have no illusions about
party platforms. Platforms aren't worth the paper that they
are written on. The only people who care about platforms
are the various factions within the party who use fights
over the wording of the platform for factional intrigues and
jockeying for position.

Traditionally, it has suited the interests of the liberal
wing of the Democratic Party to mount platform fights. It
has made good press for the folks back home and allowed
them to distinguish themselves from the patently reactionary
elements of the party. In the past this has been done
around a civil rights plank, but, given the present level of
racist sentiment particularly around busing, that might
backfire. The war will be a fine issue to play with this
time, and the issue won't be too divisive since the party
already pretty much accepts the necessity of a tactical
retreat in Southeast Asia.

This all makes the Three Point Program attractive to
Democratic Party liberals. Former Senators Morse and
Gruening have already stepped forward as national spokesmen
for the program. McGovern has quietly given his endorsement.
Money and media coverage have been committed.
It is quite possible that a watered down version of
the program will be adopted which can be trumpeted as a
victory for the movement - and if some purist demands the
original formulation...well, he can always vote for Nixon.

There are two arguments directed at the left as reasons
to work on this program despite everything aforementioned.
The first is that endorsing the Three Point Program provides
a concrete way to give political support to the Vietnamese,
since, in substance, the three points are the basic
political stands of the PRG. However, those promoting
this activity are keeping it very quiet that this is true in
order not to endanger the endorsements of the liberal
notables and the breadth of the mass appeal. But such
covert support for the PRG is no better than no support at
all. Nixon was able to pass off Vietnamization and the
most recent escalations with relatively little response in
this country because most people are willing to accept
massive bombings of yellow people to "stop Communism" so
long as U.S. casualties are being held down. The Three
Point Program does nothing to challenge that kind of consciousness
by challenging its racist premises and by
increasing the popular understanding of, and support for,
the national liberation movements in Southeast Asia,
particularly understanding of, and support for, the P.R.G.
Not only does the PRG need a conscious American public
that can see through the maze of lies and deceptions that
Nixon puts out to justify his policies, American leftists
in all of their work must stress the necessity to raise the
level of popular consciousness. The Three Point Program,
however, undermines popular consciousness by building
the Democratic Party. Activity around such a program is
antithetical to the work necessary to develop a conscious
working class, and to build the organizational forms
which the working class will need in order to take power.

The other, more theoretical, argument says that the
ruling class is split between those who favor stepped-up
intervention in IndoChina and those who favor a tactical
retreat. Therefore the left has a rare opportunity to influence
policy decisions (as argued above, we're not sure
how, but...). By exerting such influence and thereby
winning a victory for the movement, we can begin to
reverse the cycle of demoralization and disintegration that
has overtaken the left. It will indeed be a victory for the
U.S. movement - and for the Vietnamese people - if all
U.S. forces are withdrawn, but that has nothing to do with
the left becoming immersed in a platform fight with
Democratic Party 'progressives'.

This type of permeationist strategy has been advocated
repeatedly by certain sections of the Left for some time,
although rarely in such a bald unsophisticated form.
Those groups that have tried it have either vanished from
history or have become explicitly reactionary. For
example, some groupings within the Socialist Party entered
the Democratic Party to strengthen its left wing and ended
up aligned with its more reactionary elements.

The basic flaw in-this type of approach is to forget that
a left that is reformist, that puts forth no alternative to
capitalist society, has no reason for existing. While it
may survive for a time as a clique built around some individuals,
eventually it dissolves. Any programatic or organizational
merger with a sector of the ruling class
insures such disintegration. At those times when our short
range goals are similar to those of the liberals, it is
particularly important to maintain independent left
organization and programs that reflect the needs and
potentials of the working class.

This point is particularily important in a presidential
election year. At such times there is the perennial rediscovery
by some sections of the left of the importance of
relating to the elections, of 'going where the people are',
and of 'relating to the actual consciousness of the masses'
In practice this means coercing one's friends to vote for
the more 'progressive' of the candidates and knocking on
doors and licking envelopes for your favorite Democratic
politician. Despite the fact that such activity has engaged
a good proportion of the left's energies in each election
year, it has never built the influence or authority of radicals
on any major issue. On the contrary, it has sapped
the morale and internal coherence of the left. Over the
past 30 years the CPUSA has put enormous amounts of
energy into this kind of politics only to find their favorite
politicians turning into their fiercest persecutors.

The leftists working on the Three Point Program are
making the same mistake and promoting the same illusions.
They fail to grasp the fundamental fact that the only
power of the left lies in the rebellious activity of masses
of people, not in having friends in high places. Only so
far as we can become part of such insurgent activity and
can help bring coherence and self-consciousness to it can
we talk of influencing policy...making history.

The war in Vietnam won't end because some liberal
politician wants it to, or because a small group of radicals
discovers the 'right' strategy, but because the capitalists
are forced to end it by military defeat and domestic resistance.
It is the central task of the anti-war movement to
consolidate and politicize that resistance. The Three
Point Program, on the contrary, diffuses and depoliticizes
the popular anti-war sentiment. Such maneuvering in
Democratic Party politics, and all similar forms of electioneering,
are in contradiction to the basic tasks of the
left in the anti-war movement.

The coalition around the Three Point Program represents
the worst sort of capitulation to liberalism and
capitalist politics. That the PCPJ should find itself tied to
such a program is conclusive proof of its inability to
provide adequate leadership to the anti-war movement.

UNITED FRONT AGAINST IMPERIALISM

Recently the Revolutionary Union (R.U.) has been attempting
to form a third national anti-war center around its
strategy of a 'united front against imperialism'. This
strategy requires an extended critique which this organization
has made in another pamphlet (The United Front
Against Imperialism, A Critique). However, from that
analysis we have concluded that while it is most likely
that the United Front will remain small, isolated, and
sectarian - less able than NPAC or PCPJ to relate to the
on-going mass struggle - insofar as it is able to gain a
mass base, the basic reformism of the united front strategy
will open this formation to the same weaknesses as NPAC
and PCPJ. At best, it will be an NPAC with better slogans
for its demonstrations, or a PCPJ with equally empty
programs with the addition of a pledge of allegiance to a
vaguely Maoist position from its participating
organizations. We don't think that such a formation is any
better able to fulfill the tasks of the anti-war movement
than the older, more established ones.

A CLASS BASED ANTI-IMPERIALIST MOVEMENT

If one agrees with Lenin that 'imperialism is the monopoly
stage of capitalism', then the only fundamental basis
for an anti-imperialist movement is a worker's movement
capable of overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with
socialism. Much of the U.S. left, while paying lip service
to Lenin, act as if imperialism was a matter of government
policy. NPAC, PCPJ, and the United Front Against
Imperialism base their activity on appeals to humanitarian
sentiments, while attempting to point out that meddling in
other people's business is not profitable, as well as being
immoral. They relate to the war in Vietnam in ways that
obscure, rather than clarify, the capitalist essence of the
policies which this government is pursuing. They see the
primary task of the left in the anti-war movement as
inflaming public opinion against the war in order to pressure
the government to alter its policy, when the primary
task for the left must be to focus the sentiment against the
war on the root causes of the war.

While we agree that popular opposition to the war puts
constraints on the government and provides an opening
for left agitation and organizing, we argue for a different
conception of an anti-war movement and of the role of a
left within such a movement. We envisage a movement
able to attack and disrupt capitalist production and distribution,
its military power and its mechanisms of ideological
control - a movement capable of exercising social
power and mounting challenger to capitalist hegemony at
vital points of the capitalist structure. Such a movement
must be connected with all struggles in all sectors, and
must inevitably project alternative modes of social
organization to capitalism. Although at this point such a
movement is clearly quite a distance away, all of our
work must keep it in mind and prepare for it.

In 1919, the longshoremen of Seattle refused to load
arms for U.S. troops being sent to Russia to suppress the
Bolshevik revolution. In 1968, 43 Black paratroopers refused
riot duty in Chicago against anti-war demonstrators.
Black Polaroid workers have been conducting a struggle to
disrupt production of photographic equipment by that company
for the government of South Africa. Black longshoremen
have blocked unloading of ships from Rhodesia.
Tens of thousands of draftees have simply not shown up
for induction, while thousands more within the military
have deserted or refused to fight. Students all over the
country have run recruiters off campuses, paralyzed and
disrupted ROTC programs, exposed and discredited Cold
War ideologues and Pentagon-CIA research programs.

A viable organized anti-imperialist movement could
develop, sustain, and politicize such mass struggles which
are already taking place, and prepare for those that are
likely to occur in the immediate and not-so-immediate
future.

Although development of such an anti-imperialist movement
is a long term process, we believe it is the only one
that will work. We do not have a detailed blueprint on how
that process will unfold, nor do we presume to know all
the organizational forms it will take. However, we do
think that certain basic points are necessary to the
development of such a movement.

1. While there are occasions when the left initiates
significant mass action, it is imperialism in crisis that
daily generates a mass opposition to itself. This opposition
regularly boils over into localized rebellion, generally
of a minor character. Though the left has not recognized
it, these actions are a force against imperialism that is
much stronger than anything exerted through the present
organized movement activities. In fact, the attitude is
widespread in the anti-war movement that without the
continuous prodding of the movement the people would fall
back into passivity.

Let us give an example of this peculiar myopia.
Recently in Chicago, thousands of Vietnam veterans,
mainly Black, trashed a 'job fair' to which they had come
seeking jobs only to find stalling techniques and endless
forms to fill out. The vets fought it out with the police,
attempted to march on Mayor Daley's house, drove out the
interviewers from the big corporations, and, generally, tore
the thing up. At the same time the organized peace
movement had its dependable minimum of marchers
parading around the Federal Building in the loop, unaware
of what was happening three miles away.

2. Such an anti-imperialist movement cannot be built
without serious sustained organizing work, the kind of
work that may not produce immediate results, particularly
the sort of results that can be measured by bodies at
demonstrations. At present the movement doesn't take
such organizing work seriously, in fact, it is contemptuous
of it. Movement meetings and conferences, rather than
dealing with the actual problems and possibilities in
organizing, are preoccupied with schemes and gimmicks
and sectarian posturing.

3. A real anti-imperialist movement must be solidly
based in the working class, and without a clear class
perspective no such base can be developed. Such a
perspective is inconceivable without a radical change in
the current a-political and anti-theoretical style of the
anti-war movement. While it is true that, at present, it is
usually the sectarians in the movement who are pressing
for ' political discussion', this doesn't mean that it is
sectarian to deal with political and theoretical issues. In
fact, such discussion and debate is essential to the
development of a coherent and practicable working class
perspective.